Responsible Cities PAC: The list of who NOT to vote for

By: Diane Benjamin

Everyone endorsed by this PAC have an agenda. That agenda isn’t doing what’s right for taxpayers, it’s doing what THEY want done regardless of your opinion. Did you want a $30 million pedestrian underpass in Normal?

I hope you are noticing what electing progressives means. They work for government, not you. Dave Koehler is punching taxpayers twice – taxing the entire county for the airport and changing the rules just for District 87 so they don’t have to have a referendum. Sharon Chung is changing the rules just for the Town of Normal. Voting maters, it isn’t left vrs right – it us against government. Electing people who have a progressive agenda means no end to what they want to impose on you without your permission.

Donna Boelen should be concerned that she is on endorsed.

The PAC quit hiding who they are. A list of names is now available: That is a who’s Who list of Democrats including the former fake Republican Josh Barnett. There are a couple of token Barnett type RINO Republicans on the list. Nobody on the list understands government is always a threat to freedom, the bigger it gets the more rights it takes away.

Who to NOT VOTE FOR is on Responsible Cities endorsement list:

They endorsed two Bloomington candidates running unopposed, they didn’t endorse the third one. They are all in on the two candidates that would spend whatever is necessary downtown: Danenberger and Hendricks. How many more decades will it take before someone says: Government doesn’t create sustainable development? (See Coliseum and BCPA)

In Normal they endorsed the Chris Koos bobblehead picks: Byars, Lorenz, and Smith.

District 87 needs 3 people, the PAC endorsed Lust and Wylie. You don’t have to vote for 3, only 4 are running.

The PAC endorsed all candidates the Unit 5 teachers union wants elected: Adams, Pyle, Roser, Williams. If they win the only representation in Unit 5 will be pro union. Gee, seems like 4 people should actually represent the people paying the bills! These 4 won’t.

For Heartland they endorsed Mary Campbell. You can vote for two – only three are running.

Of course they want the Unit 5 referendum passed. It isn’t possible to give government too much money. Agendas demand your money and the “progress” never ends. Demanding $20 million to cover a $12 million deficit while not eliminating DEI speaks volumes. Vote No Again.

Not planning to Vote? You are why local government isn’t For and By the People. They don’t want you to vote.

They do appreciate your complaisance.

Bloomington sample ballot:

10 thoughts on “Responsible Cities PAC: The list of who NOT to vote for

  1. The four that were endorsed by the Union have said they would reinstate the cuts if the referendum passes and they get elected. In particular, I’ve seen Mark Adams post several items about how important it is to keep Carlock Elementary open. Seems important to him, at least. As a lifelong resident of Carlock, that got him my vote.

    I also saw in the WGLT article from last night that Brad Wurth (one of the candidates against the referendum) sent an email to a board member calling for the closure of Carlock regardless of whether or not the referendum passes. He’s a definite “no” for me. Honestly, makes me hesitant to vote for Emery, Jada, and Frank as well as he seems to be their leader.

    Carlock Elementary is such an integral part of our community, many of us can’t even imagine the sense of community that would be lost if it closes. For that reason, I don’t think I can vote for Wurth and want to hear if the others agree with him on that issue.


  2. We had Andy Byars stop by the house. He said he was undeclared politically, did not believe in the wind turbines, he wanted Normal to keep paying down its debt and term limits were necessary. Sure sounds different from everything I have read about him. I am so tired of people like him!

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Sadly that may be illegal under the Illinois Corrupt Politicians Protection Act. (Not the official name – I think it has ‘wiretapping’ in the title – but that’s what it really is.) Really short version is that private conversations can only be recorded with the express consent of All parties involved. vs the federal regulation applicable most other places where only one party needs to consent. There is an exception if you think he’s going to be talking about something outright illegal, but political lies don’t meet that requirement.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s